Labor's carbon tax lie

[drsmith]

A reminder to posters here including moderators.......

What's the problem ?

Juliar ?

Surely not. She is a liar.

 

[springhill]

Kitschy presentation, but gets to the heart of the problem, this carbon tax is a shift of aussie dollars offshore.

http://kzoo.co/VyQHed

 

[sails]

Would they? Be careful what you wish for, sails.
Given the predictions of some scientists that we are facing an imminent catastrophe if drastic action is not taken immediately, why do you think they would have any appreciation of the economic and social factors that accompany their professed desire to completely alter our present lives?...

Julia, it was tongue in cheek - not to be taken seriously. Although, it was definitely fueled by frustration with the continual incompetence of this government...

Even IF AGW science is correct, is carbon tax really the best solution if the world is under dire threat of excess co2? Even if I did believe AGW science, I don't know that I could just go along with a carbon tax as many AGW believers seem to do.

Carbon tax seems so far removed from any sort of science. I thought I asked Derty if there is any scientific testing that proves carbon tax is the most efficient scientific method. I would have to go back through my posts to check that one out.

But is seems puzzling that posters such as Basilio become soooo very hung up on AGW science but then don't seem to have an qualms about accepting a politically designed system where there doesn't seem to be any sort of testing results adjusted for economic factors such as economic growth or recession and any other factors that may be causing a rise of rall in co2 that isn't directly related to pricing carbon.

I have not seen any reason to believe that the AGW theory is correct and the fact that AGW believers are usually so pro a carbon tax while not insisting on sound scientific backup seems quite hypocritical, imo, and further creates cynicism to the whole thing. It seems it's OK to bamboozle people with the AGW science, but it puts a big question mark on these people's scientific knowledge when they then follow politicians like sheep without any question as to whether it is the most scientifically efficient method.

I know you have had experience in the medical field (as I have) and we would not dream of sending people with diabeties to a politician to decide on a cure. Medical scientists identify the problems and then the search for a cure remains under the care of highly trained medical scientists. Eventually, politicians may be required to pass policy to enable certain treatments to be affordable and have the medical facilities to provide treatment, but politicians are definitely not involved in the scientific development of treatment and medication.

So, even IF AGW is correct, why are politicians trying to do the job of scientists and taking on the responsibility of a cure without any scientific training?

 

[Boggo]

The new frontier ?

 

[wayneL]

The new frontier ?

I'll be right then

 

[dutchie]

Juliar Gillard .................................... Alan Jones
Juliar Gillard .................................... Alan Jones
Juliar Gillard .................................... Alan Jones


Hey Juliar, Australia says .... Alan Jones!!!

 

[springhill]

Juliar Gillard .................................... Alan Jones
Juliar Gillard .................................... Alan Jones
Juliar Gillard .................................... Alan Jones


Hey Juliar, Australia says .... Alan Jones!!!

I know, that line is getting so irritating!

 

[DB008]

Well, well, well, what do we have here???

I found this on a website and thought it might be good for others to view.
Count the lies on the Government propaganda people....

http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2011/07/clean-energy-future-advert-count-the-lies/

Government propaganda at its very worst. Let’s go through it:

* Lie Number 1: Carbon Pollution. It isn’t carbon and it isn’t pollution.

* Lie Number 2: The majority of scientists agree that climate change is a result of human activity. A manufactured consensus from a politicised organisation (the IPCC) which was formed to find evidence of a pre-conceived conclusion. How much climate change is actually a result of human activity? We don’t know.

* Lie Number 3: We can avoid the worst impacts by reducing “pollution”. No we can’t. The carbon tax will do nothing to change the climate.

* Lie Number 4: Climate change is predicted to lead to further rises in temperature, rises in sea levels and some extreme weather events becoming more common, making life more difficult. Temperatures and sea levels have been rising slowly for centuries, without any help from man-made emissions. There are no confirmed links to more extreme weather events despite what the media tries to tell you.

* Lie Number 5: Countries around the world are already taking action [lists China, USA, India and Europe]. No, they are not. China’s emissions will rise for the foreseeable future despite a few token environmental gestures, India’s carbon tax is $1/tonne, the USA has backed away from any federal climate action leaving just the tiny RGGI, and Europe is a hopeless economic basket case on the verge of collapse, thanks in part to a crippling ETS mired in fraud and corruption.

* Lie Number 6: These clean energy sources [solar, wind, tidal and geothermal] are sustainable, renewable, their supply cannot be disrupted by events elsewhere, and they don’t contribute to pollution. None of those energy sources can replace fossil fuels for base-load electricity generation. And wind and solar are “disrupted” when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing. Tidal power is non-existent in Australia, and geothermal is so tiny as to be not even worth mentioning. The manufacture of solar panels and rare earth magnets for wind turbines releases millions of tonnes of real pollution into the environment.

* Lie Number 7: Developing these new industries means developing new jobs. False. Every fake green job costs hundreds of thousands of dollars and takes away on average 2 – 4 real jobs. Subsidising inefficient, unreliable and expensive alternative energy is like burning $100 bills. The market will decide when “alternative” energy becomes competitive, not the government.

* Lie Number 8: Meeting the challenge of climate change means being responsible, staying competitive and Australia continuing to prosper. A unilateral carbon tax does nothing for climate change, it is totally irresponsible, will make Australia less competitive compared to its trading partners, and will damage the economy for no benefit.

Wow. Eight whoppers in just over a minute. Pretty impressive.

And it’s all paid for by YOUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS.

Baldrick says:
Monday, 18 July 2011 at 3:39 pm

Bob Brown wants truth in political advertising 'to monitor and regulate political advertising to ensure it is true and accurate'. - March 2010
http://greensmps.org.au/content/speech/truth-political-advertising


The Governments own guidelines on political advertising state:
21. Where information is presented as a fact, it should be accurate and verifiable. When making a factual comparison, the material should not attempt to mislead the recipient about the situation with which the comparison is made and it should state explicitly the basis for the comparison.

http://www.finance.gov.au/advertising/docs/Guidelines-on-Information-and-Advertising-Campaigns-by-Australian-Government-Departments-and-Agencies-March-2010.pdf

... where is the fact in calling carbon dioxide a pollutant? That's not fact - that's political spin!

 

[startrader]

Kitschy presentation, but gets to the heart of the problem, this carbon tax is a shift of aussie dollars offshore.

http://kzoo.co/VyQHed

Scary stuff. Do these loonies in charge have any idea of what's involved here and, if they do, they must know that it is not going to help us as a country in any way at all. This madness cannot go ahead as far as I'm concerned. Surely the collective will of the people will prevail and it won't happen!

 

[noco]

Scary stuff. Do these loonies in charge have any idea of what's involved here and, if they do, they must know that it is not going to help us as a country in any way at all. This madness cannot go ahead as far as I'm concerned. Surely the collective will of the people will prevail and it won't happen!

Yes, I believe this Green/Labor socialist government know exactly what they are doing and that is the ruination of our economy. Socialism does not believe in free enterprise and the making of profits for a fair return on investment. Send them bust to make an easy enrty of take over.

Their idiology is for mining, farming, manufacturing and the banking system to be managed or nationalised by the Federal Government. History has proved that Socialism, which is another name for communism, has failed dismally. Russia, Cuba, North Korea and China who has digressed from true communsim into more or less capitalism, as has Russia. Cuba and North Korea are still under a communist regime and one does not have to elaborate on the conditions prevailing in these two countries.

Freedom of speech is disallowed and if one person should step out of line, they are normally imprisoned or shot.

We now have comrade Brown instigating control of the media by intimidation in order to prevent adverse criticism of the governing body via an parliamentry enquiry and if comrade Gillard agrees to that enquiry she will be heavily branded as Brown's deputy.

Thank goodness our constitution will eventually win out with the power of the voters. In the meantime, an awful lot of damage is taking place with the power of the Greens.

 

[Smurf1976]

I know you have had experience in the medical field (as I have) and we would not dream of sending people with diabeties to a politician to decide on a cure. Medical scientists identify the problems and then the search for a cure remains under the care of highly trained medical scientists. Eventually, politicians may be required to pass policy to enable certain treatments to be affordable and have the medical facilities to provide treatment, but politicians are definitely not involved in the scientific development of treatment and medication.

So, even IF AGW is correct, why are politicians trying to do the job of scientists and taking on the responsibility of a cure without any scientific training?

There is a simple reason for the carbon price and ETS. The bankers are in control these days, as they have been for quite some time, and guess who benefits from creating another market, another exchange, another thing to trade...

Ultimately, it's just another means of transfering wealth from the real productive economy into the hands of the non-productive who call the shots.

As I've said many times, I'd much rather go back to a situation where bankers and the markets had their role as being to serve real productive industry rather than the entire economy being focused on banking and markets as though that were the ultimate objective.

An engineer would come up with practical means of reducing emissions. That's how engineers look at problems. A banker will come up with a means of speculating and trading the problem rather than actually fixing it. That's what they do.

 

[sails]

Thanks Smurf - that is also my thinking. But it does seem interesting that those pushing AGW for all they were worth not so long ago have gone very quiet and don't seem to want to answer these sort of questions. - that is with the exception of Derty who does so and in a reasoned manner - and that is appreciated.

And, of course, this is why Turnbull is so keen on pricing carbon.

It does seem there is little, if any, "science" on carbon tax being the most efficient way to reduce co2 (IF it is actually a problem).

 

[Julia]

And, of course, this is why Turnbull is so keen on pricing carbon.

Turnbull seems hell bent on destabilising the Libs. Last night he was off again with an inflammatory speech about accepting 'the science'.
Why can't he be a team player and stick to commenting on his own p/f!

Tony Abbott, at least in public, is being way too soft on him imo, making conciliatory comments to the effect that he doesn't disagree with Malcolm etc. This just makes him look weak and foolish.

Presumably Mr Turnbull has some longer term plan which accounts for his behaviour.
It would appear not to be to enhance the fortunes of the Liberal Party.

 

[joea]

There is a simple reason for the carbon price and ETS. The bankers are in control these days, as they have been for quite some time, and guess who benefits from creating another market, another exchange, another thing to trade...

Ultimately, it's just another means of transfering wealth from the real productive economy into the hands of the non-productive who call the shots.

As I've said many times, I'd much rather go back to a situation where bankers and the markets had their role as being to serve real productive industry rather than the entire economy being focused on banking and markets as though that were the ultimate objective.

An engineer would come up with practical means of reducing emissions. That's how engineers look at problems. A banker will come up with a means of speculating and trading the problem rather than actually fixing it. That's what they do.

Well personally I do not think the carbon tax is a simple redistribution.
Firstly Labor will run out of money. Why, because they have the economy in "freefall".
When Gillard believes she has educated the Australian people, she will say "well less implement it."
By implementing a carbon tax , money comes to the Gov. coffers before it is redistributed. That will get them breathing space, and be able to continue in government.
She has said "once the Australian people see the carbon tax working, and understand it and the compensation, the people will endorse Labor at the next election".
Well I say "NO WAY HOSAY".
You will pick this up in her "body language" as she gets impatient to implement it.
( I hear before Christmas".

Gillard has already said a group of 20(i think) people will be formed to ensure that companies can not "rort" the carbon tax scheme. Fines of $1million will be implemented on companies that do. Well actally $1million at about 8am on the day announced, then by 11am inflation had hit it. and it had increased to $1.1 million.
Quote" there will be a million reasons not to rort the scheme".

Now because "rorting" the government is a "blood sport", I am sure it will be rorted.
joea

 

[Logique]

Well, well, well, what do we have here???
I found this on a website and thought it might be good for others to view.
Count the lies on the Government propaganda people.... http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2011/07/clean-energy-future-advert-count-the-lies/

Good work Dannyboy. That's a decent summary, and the punters are waking up.

How often is Europe held up as an exemplar and template for Australia to follow. Paid maternity leave, ETS, unwinding proven baseload power sources, in favour of expensive wind and solar. Middle-class welfare, the social democratic idyll.

Well have a look at Europe now, they're broke. The 'green' jobs cost 3 traditional jobs.

 

[Logique]

...guess who benefits from creating another market, another exchange, another thing to trade..

Perhaps the Member for Goldman Sachs, or a failed former Lib leader. Why don't they just team up with Malcolm Fraser and join the Labor Party.

 

[Knobby22]

Well have a look at Europe now, they're broke. The 'green' jobs cost 3 traditional jobs.

Germany isn't.
Who has developed most of the new technology? Germany.
Even the Australian company CFU has set up in Germany creating jobs for them.

I visited Germany for work recently and it is paradise. Autobahns, fast trains, many great middle sized companies manufacturing everything. 6 weeks holiday a year.

USA has high unemployment, 2 weeks holidays, miserable food and people, huge numbers sleeping in cars and in campervans, aging infrastructure, jammed freeways, old trains.

They didn't have any green revolution. Shouldn't they be better off????

 

[Logique]

Heaven forbid we should criticize Germany, a stronghold of the Green movement. And of course every opportunity must be taken to take cheap shots at the US.

Without Germany to bail them out, Europe would be...where? Is this the Germany of industry. Of nuclear power plants? Now converting to coal-fired plants because nuclear has a tarnished political image? Their 'carbon pollution' is ok I suppose?

Germany being the model, let's , like them, have coal-fired power and manufacturing industries. A pulp mill at Bell Bay for example.

 

[Smurf1976]

Germany isn't.
Who has developed most of the new technology? Germany.
Even the Australian company CFU has set up in Germany creating jobs for them.

I visited Germany for work recently and it is paradise. Autobahns, fast trains, many great middle sized companies manufacturing everything. 6 weeks holiday a year.

USA has high unemployment, 2 weeks holidays, miserable food and people, huge numbers sleeping in cars and in campervans, aging infrastructure, jammed freeways, old trains.

They didn't have any green revolution. Shouldn't they be better off????

Germany retained its heavy and other manufacturing industries.

The USA has substantially de-industrialised and now imports much of what it consumes.

Retaining heavy industry and general manufacturing in Australia is what this debate is about. You seem to be arguing that this is a good thing based on Germany's experience and I agree with that. Preventing a US-style deinstrialisation is largely what those opposed to the carbon tax are fighting for - to retain and expand Australian industry.

You don't need to go to Germany to see what I'm talking about. Just compare parts of Australia which developed their resources with those that didn't. Worth noting in that context that immediately prior to the emergence of the green movement there was more heavy industry in Tas than in either WA or Qld. 40 years later and WA / Qld dominate that field in Australia whilst Tas is pretty much a basket case economically.

Now, I could point out that practically every large scale development proposal in Tas for the past 30 years has been obstructed by Greens whilst there has been massive industrial growth in Qld and WA. The economic effects are undeniable. The state which once ranked 3rd for heavy industry is now pretty much off the map whilst the one-time backwaters of Qld and especially WA have surged ahead.

If you want "good" jobs then look to things like manufacturing. If you want a dead end with low wages then consider tourism or hospitality. Harsh maybe but that's reality. Now, I don't remember seeing too many Greens advocating manufacturing, though they seem to think that tourism is the economic answer to everything (just don't mention how much CO2 tourism produces or things like low wages etc).

Don't misunderstand me. I don't propose cutting every last tree, damming the lot and putting a smelter in every suburb. But the notion that a country, or even just one state, can rely solely on tourism and like activities whilst maintaining an advanced economy just doesn't seem to be working. Maybe it works somewhere on earth with a huge scale of economy and "must see" tourist attractions, but in Australia we're not in that position and the much hyped "ecotourism" has never gone anywhere despite the promises (indeed there are industrial sites which attract more visitors each year than nearby natural wonders).

 

[Mickel]

The claim that Climate Change is man made through carbon dioxide is a load of "CRAP".

As the link below explains this carbon (dioxide) tax is fatally flawed. It is an absoulte scam.



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...for-a-carbon-tax/story-e6frgd0x-1226094872101

Noco, no subsequent mention to your quoted reference appears to have been made so I'll post the first few paragraphs to show how stupid and damaging this tax is-

"THE one thing you need to know about Treasury's modelling of the carbon tax is this: it assumes that by 2016, the US and all the other developed economies that do not have carbon taxes or emissions trading systems in place will have them up and running.

This implies that in next year's US presidential election, likely to be fought at a time of high unemployment, the winning candidate will campaign on the basis of introducing a carbon tax that will go from zero to $30 a tonne in a matter of months. And that tax will then not only get through Congress but in record time.

Moreover, that feat accomplished, by 2021 China will sign up too, and with 14 per cent of the world's population and barely 20 per cent of world income, will agree to shoulder 34 to 35 per cent of the costs of global mitigation. As part of that deal, China's leadership will accept a fall in national living standards, relative to business as usual, of between 5 and 10 per cent, while per capita incomes in the far wealthier US and European Union decline by a fraction of that amount. And with China on board, the rest of the world will join the party.

These assumptions are central to Treasury's analysis, not least because they ensure that by the time Australia moves to an ETS, there is a fully functioning world market for emissions permits. That world market makes it possible for permits bought overseas to contribute two-thirds of the mitigation we achieve during the period to 2020. In contrast, were the market as it is today, with more than 80 per cent of permit trading occurring within the EU, Australian demand for permits would significantly drive up prices, increasing Treasury's estimated abatement costs.